Current Events: Texas "pro-life"?

sear

sear

Administrator
Staff member
Texas abortion law under challenge.
The current Texas so called "pro-life *" action is David & Goliath. The State of Texas is only one fiftieth of our union. But this new Texas anti-abortion law is an attempt not only to change Texas, but to impose these new limitations on all women in the U.S., whether in Texas, or not.

Does a woman have a right to choose?
If not, why not?

* Misnomer: GWB claimed "pro-life", but as governor of Texas GWB presided over more executions than any Texas governor before him.

France reacts to nuke submarine technology transfer from U.S. to Australia.

Economic ripples from China drops U.S. markets.
 
Last edited:
There's right. There's wrong. Murder is always wrong. Finally Texas is doing something about it. Good for Texas.
 
abortion isnt murder - not my opinion but a statement of Texan law (abortion isnt murder in any US state, in fact I dont think that it is murder any where in the western world).
Hard to think of Texas as pro life when it has one of the highest neonatal maternal death rates in the western world (about 4 times the EU rate)
Hard to think of Texas as pro life when it executes more people than the entire EU
Hard to think of Texas as pro life when it allows people to die simply because they cannot afford medical treatment
 
Greetings mm!
Welcome to cv.

Abortion may not be murder according to AHD *, if it's not "unlawful".

But this Texas law declares abortion illegal if a fetal heartbeat is present, right?
So if the Texas law makes it illegal, does that mean it's murder?

If a fetal heartbeat is present on day 30, and she gets an abortion on day #31, she's a murderer? Therefore automatic San Quentin 25 to life?

Perhaps it's wrong to participate in that squabble. Vehement anti-choice sloganeering is a poor substitute for factual argumentation.

Thanks for joining cv mm.
Visit often. Post a lot.

* murder (mûr´der) noun
1. The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
 
Abortion isn't murder. The latter is a legal term.

At six weeks in the majority of cases the woman isn't even aware she's pregnant. And at that point the embryo is merely a collection of cells somewhat smaller than a grain of rice with no brain, no lungs, and no heart.

That aside, Texas is not "pro-life". At best they're "pro-birth" and in reality all they want to do is control women.

1111.jpg.png
 
So if the Texas law makes it illegal, does that mean it's murder?
Click to expand...
no it means its illegal
stealing a candy bar from a corner store is also illegal and its not murder either

your quote from a general purpose dictionary is pointless you need a legal dictionary specifically a Texan one

eg (and I dont suggest that this is definitive)
According to the Texas Penal Code, an individual who commits murder has Intentionally or knowingly caused the death of another person, or knowingly and intentionally sought to cause bodily harm or injury through an act that was dangerous to human life, and as a result, caused the death of another person.

is a fetus a person?
 
I'm not trying to cry wolf here, but the broader picture does raise some questions with potentially alarming answers.

Let's not forget: it's not merely generations long tradition, it's also Constitutional law that POTUS fill vacancies in SCOTUS when such vacancies occur during that president's administration, as during the Obama (D-IL) administration.

BUT !!

Senate Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) simply refused to complete his Constitutional "advise & consent" obligation, deliberately tilting the ideological balance of the high court toward Republicans against the will of the majority that voted Obama into the white house twice. That allowed McConnell / Trump to pack SCOTUS with criminalization friendly Republican SCOTUS appointees. And now this Texas case may ultimately be decided in SCOTUS. Coincidence ?

Either way this issue is an ignition source that might potentially catalyze a conflagration.

As psychologist Joy Browne reminds, anal retentalism is about withholding. Not clear to me what perceived benefit there is for the withholders of women's rights, other than the sadistic joy of copious exercise of dictatorial power.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
http://www.mediaite.com/online/white-house-appears-to-want-to-shame-the-shameless-mitch-mcconnell-and-company/
 
it seems absurd to me that a president can influence how law is applied decades after the end of his presidency, Trump despite him being totally discredited twice impeached and being one of only 4 post war one term presidents will cast his shadow over the USSC and how law is interpreted and applied for decades
 
"it seems absurd to me that ..." mm #9
Click to expand...
Nailed it.
It's not easy to sort out the dynamic mm.

As you know Trump has no formal authority in such matters, despite Trump retaining lifetime Secret Service protection. But:
what happened at the mid-term election two years into Trump's four year administration, Trump endorsed some mid-term candidates, and they won. And Trump did not endorse some others, and the conspicuous ones lost.
The result, Trump is imagined by unprincipled, spineless Republicans to have decisive political (electoral) mojo. If I may re-use your word, it may seem "absurd", but apparently many Republicans care more about keeping their job than doing their job. And so the Trump parade continues.

It's a terribly sad if not horrifying comment on the United States of America. Technically it may be true that Trump didn't actually win the 2016 vote. Hillary (D) won that. BUT it doesn't matter. The electoral college put Trump in office anyway. The United States Constitution's electoral college is specifically designed to thwart majority choice, public opinion. And for the second time in the new millennium bad things happen as a result. W/ Bush it was the needless invasion & occupation of Iraq. Cost U.S. 5K countrymen. W/ Trump it was bloody insurrection.

And yet this obvious discredit, the Republican party continues as a viable if not formidable political power in the U.S.
"it seems absurd to me that ..." mm #9
Click to expand...
You, me, and a few billion of our closest friends.

ref:
ab·surd (əb-sûrd, -zûrd)
adj.
1. a. Extremely unreasonable, incongruous, or inappropriate: an absurd request.
b. Impossible to take seriously; silly: a character who goes through many absurd adventures. See Synonyms at foolish.

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: absurd

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: absurd
www.ahdictionary.com www.ahdictionary.com
 
RBG died in september 2020 less than three months before the end of Trump she was replaced by Amy Coney Barrett a Trump nominee

Amy Coney Barrett is 49 she could be in office for three decades after Trump demises.

But bad as this is it is almost as acceptable when compared to his nominations to the US federal courts some of whom had zero trial experience

Justin R. Walker, a Trump nominee as a judge to the Western District of Kentucky had never tried a case
Kathryn Mizelle another Trump nominee (Florida) had not only never tried a case she had only 8 years experience as a lawyer - the usual standard is 12 years
The US bar described another nominee (Lawrence J.C. VanDyke, who was actually confirmed to the 9th appeals court) as ""arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-today practice including procedural rules."
 
Associate Justice Ginsburg was invited to retire by Democrats during the Obama [D-IL] administration so that she would be replaced by a younger AJ appointed by a Democrat (Obama).
Ginsburg's reply was that she was more liberal than whomever might be found to replace her.

That seemed to me to be an example of Ginsburg's waning intellectual acuity. For the issue was not how liberal she was, but how much longer she would live.

Seems to me Majority Leader McConnell [R-KY] set a dangerous precedent in refusing to hold a hearing on Obama's nominee, M. Garland. Seems inevitable Republicans will eventually regret it.
 
mark mywords said:
an excellent argument for fixed terms
Click to expand...
"Fixed terms" surely would make the next law judge replacement cycle begin date predictable.

Not clear to me how fixed judicial terms would have affected Sen. McConnell's refusal to hold hearing on M. Garland.

I'm not suggesting there's no problem. Only that I'm not sure that's a solution to Republican judicial anal retentalism.
 
Fixed terms" surely would make the next law judge replacement cycle begin date predictable.
Click to expand...

would that be a bad thing and if so why?


Not clear to me how fixed judicial terms would have affected Sen. McConnell's refusal to hold hearing on M. Garland.
Click to expand...
I didnt say that it would obviously one easy change will not fix all ills

Fixed terms would however have stopped Mssrs Scalia and RBG hanging on well into their dotage it would also limit the effect that a one term disgraced president would have on the future of the US juris prudence
 
mark mywords said:
would that be a bad thing and if so why?
Click to expand...
"Bad" is subjective. If not relevant to your #13, no worries.
mark mywords said:
Fixed terms would however have stopped Mssrs Scalia and RBG hanging on well into their dotage it would also limit the effect that a one term disgraced president would have on the future of the US juris prudence
Click to expand...
Please pardon me if at age 67 it seems I'm promoting the aged. That's not my intention (directly). But:

As a general rule, general trend humans gain knowledge & skill with age. Doesn't mean we can expect to see m/any 100 year old heavy-weight boxers in the ring.

But if a law judge serves in that capacity for 40 years, as which point would s/he seem more likely to have more experience? In the first decade of that career, or the 4th?

President GWB put CJ Roberts on the supreme court. Bush shopped candidates to find a younger one, so that his (GWB's) influence on the court would last longer than it would if instead his appointee was near retirement.
Due to this longevity dynamic youth displaces experience, and with that displaced experience, likely also displaced wisdom.
"Fixed terms" might help reduce the presidential incentive to prioritize longevity over judicial capability.

But it's no panacea. No one-sided coins. There's sure to be downside as well.
 
When Chief Justice Roberts was first seated on SCOTUS, was he the youngest of the 9 justices? In any case he was certainly the least tenured on that court. Yet Bush made Roberts "chief" justice. That strikes me as an insult to pervasive tradition of respecting tenure and seniority. I understand the political motivation. Does that make it right?

So I agree mm, there are some problems that could use some fixing. "The Devil's in the details." In matters of great importance, good idea to insure the "cure" isn't worse than the disease.
 
t #16 may have SCOTUS in mind.
I gather the Roberts court may be ahead of C.J. Roberts on wanting to deal a blow to Roe v. Wade.

Some definitions of murder haven't shifted much during the millennia they've applied, a dagger through the heart for example.

Perhaps less emotionally charged court precedents might be considered "settled law" by now. "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that ..." ixquick
We're a few years shy of half a century of standing precedent, despite the unrelenting onslaught of attacks by the self-righteous.

Several years ago I might have considered Roe more stable, more secure. But in the Trump era, neither common sense nor the tradition of precedent seem to count for much. Stay tuned. History will be made tomorrow, and every day thereafter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top